Supreme Court

The Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Future of the Supreme Court

What's next for SCOTUS?


Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the pioneering lawyer who became a liberal hero and pop culture icon during her lengthy career on the U.S. Supreme Court, died today at the age of 87.

Ginsburg was already a towering figure in legal circles when President Bill Clinton appointed her to the Supreme Court in 1993. In 1972 Ginsburg co-founded the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), where she played a central role in the campaign to overturn a series of legal precedents that formally enshrined the inequality of women. Slowly but surely, Ginsburg and her allies moved the law in their preferred direction. She then capped off that remarkable career by becoming an accomplished federal judge.

Ginsburg capped off her judicial career by becoming a bona fide celebrity. Popularly known among her legions of fans as "Notorious RBG" (a play on the name of the late rapper Notorious BIG), Ginsburg has enjoyed a sort of rock star status in recent years, with her praises sung in books, articles, documentaries, movies, TV interviews, Saturday Night Live skits, and countless internet memes.

Given her massive popularity, especially among the younger progressive set, it is easy to forget that Ginsburg was not always a darling of the left. For example, Ginsburg once caused real discomfort in feminist legal circles by repeatedly criticizing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling which recognized a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion. The Court "ventured too far" in Roe when it "called into question the criminal abortion statutes of every state," Ginsburg wrote in 1985. This "heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify," she argued, "and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict."

What is more, Ginsburg insisted, Roe itself stood on dubious legal foundations. Roe's author, Justice Harry Blackmun, had grounded the right to abortion in "personal privacy, somehow sheltered by due process," as Ginsburg put it. It would have been much better, she declared, if the right had been rooted in "a constitutionally based sex-equality perspective."

She took aim at Roe yet again in a 1993 lecture at New York University School of Law. The Texas statute at issue (which banned all abortions except where the life of the mother was at stake) "intolerably shackled a woman's autonomy," she observed. But "suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the 20-year controversy we have witnessed?"

In other words, Ginsburg not only threw shade at Roe's reasoning, but she argued that the far-reaching decision actually gave the anti-abortion movement a boost. Not exactly music to the ears of most pro-choice activists.

Ginsburg had her share of libertarian legal critics too. In 2012, when the Supreme Court was weighing the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, libertarian scholars and activists were at the forefront of the legal wrangling, arguing that Congress lacked the lawful authority under the Commerce Clause to compel every American to buy health insurance. Ginsburg would denounce that argument as "stunningly retrogressive."

In 2005, when the city of New London, Connecticut, sought to broaden its tax base by bulldozing a working-class neighborhood and handing the land over to private developers, Ginsburg showed little interest in the homeowners' constitutional objections. "The critical fact on the city side," she told Institute for Justice lawyer Scott Bullock, lead attorney for the homeowners, during oral arguments in Kelo v. City of New London, "is that this was a depressed community and [the government] wanted to build it up, get more jobs." Ginsburg later joined Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion, which asserted that when it came to the use of eminent domain, the government should enjoy "broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the takings power."

With Ginsburg dead, all eyes now turn to the U.S. Senate. In 2016, with a presidential election on the horizon, Senate Republicans refused to even hold hearings on President Barack Obama's SCOTUS nominee, Merrick Garland, thereby setting the stage for President Donald Trump to appoint Neil Gorsuch in 2017.

What will those same Senate Republicans do now that another SCOTUS vacancy has arisen with a presidential election looming? According to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), whomever Trump picks to replace Ginsburg "will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."

Expect the Trump administration to name a nominee quickly. Who might get the nod? One name that is sure to be on the shortlist is Amy Coney Barrett.

A former Notre Dame law professor, Barrett was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in October 2017 after a heated confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In particular, Barrett, a committed Catholic who has written frequently about matters of faith and law, was sharply queried by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.) about whether her religious views would prevent her from serving as an impartial jurist. "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that's of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for years in this country," Feinstein said.

Feinstein's remarks quickly transformed Barrett into something of a folk hero among social conservatives, who saw the Democratic senator as attacking one of their own. Those same social conservatives would undoubtedly go to the mattresses for a Barrett SCOTUS nomination. Put differently, by nominating Barrett, Trump would be throwing a heap of red meat to his supporters on the religious right. The resulting Senate confirmation hearings would go full-tilt culture war.

One thing is certain: The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg means that American politics are about to get a whole lot crazier.

NEXT: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Dead

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just in time.

    1. I’ve made $84,000 so far this year working and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing HERE? Read More

      1. Jk lol

        1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

        2. Earning money online from home is just easy nowdays. Start making every month $18k or more just by working easy copy and paste work online. Last month i have made and received $19642 in my part time only. I am a student and after my college i gave this work only 2 hrs a day on my laptop. Every person can get this job and start earning more dollars online just by follow instructions on this web……….

          ➙➙➙ Read More

    2. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I Abq decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>> More INformation Here

    3. Start generating extra cash online from hom emore than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get started…Open This Website……Click For Full Detail.

    4. I’ve made $84,000 so far this year working and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing HERE? More INformation Here

    5. [ For USA ]    Single Mom With 4 Kids Lost Her Job But Was Able To Stay On Top By Banking Continuously $1500 Per Week With An Online Work She Found Over The Internet…Check The Details HERE……Click For Full Detail.

    6. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I Abq earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. More INformation Here

    7. Yes, she was openly hostile to the entire philosophy of the constitution. That’s why the left loved her.

    8. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially Abq rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

      Heres what I do……………………………………………… More INformation Here

  2. Well. This should be interesting.

    1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…NBc after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

  3. Someone once said that America gets the things it needs just in time to save the Republic.

    Republicans hold almost enough states to hold a constitutional convention right before Lefties have fully ignored every part of the Constitution…

    Trump kicks Hillarys ass in 2016 just before all past Democrat crimes are memory holed forever.

    RBG dies just in time to make sure Roberts cannot violate his oath of office like RBG constantly did.

    1. Mcconnel hopefully learned his lesson that any nominee should be voted for in a week. No hearings. No giving in to Lefty lies against nominees.

      Lefties have had the Trump list for 4 years. Any bad stuff about the nominees needed to come out years ago or any accusations should be deemed a lie.

      1. We desperately need to criminalize the practice of Marxism

        1. Let’s criminilize peope who disagree with you? You belong in the gas chambers with the Mormons. Your lucky I’m a pacificist because moronsand people like you deserve slow painful deaths. Not the pain free ease of zyklon b.

          1. “KillAllRednecks
            September.19.2020 at 10:16 am
            Let’s criminilize peope who disagree with you?
            You belong in the gas chambers with the Mormons.
            Your lucky I’m a pacificist because moronsand people like you deserve slow painful deaths. Not the pain free ease of zyklon b.”

            Beyond parody

              1. And now Donna Brazille wants to talk ethics…


                Such a variety of ways the left has crossed the line

                1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…DFs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                  Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

          2. Demonstrating again that there is little difference between Marxists and Nazis.

            1. Duh. WW2 was a fratricidal war between close philosophical relatives.

              Think Sunni vs Shia.

              1. A wise friend of mine used to say that WWII was the result of a bet between Stalin and Hitler over who could kill more Russians.


          3. Plenty of people disagree with me, and it’s not a problem. I want to criminalize Marxism. Which is intrinsically treasonous and therefore a legitimate carve out from the first amendment. Your desire to commit genocide against Mormons, and murder me reinforce my point. You people have to go.

            So you can take your strawman and shove it up your Marxist ass.

          4. Don’t be a pacifist. Come at me with everything you’ve got. Then I can say I was……… provoked.

      2. Exactly! Why shouldn’t Trump shove Amy Barret down their throats, are they going to be civil to him if he doesn’t nominate a replacement?
        Well, if they promise.

        1. They will have to come up with a different and untested tactic this time though. Not that they won’t try, but it would be pretty hard for them to try and pin some 40 year old sexual assault on a mother of seven. The Dem corner props of aging bags with nothing left to lose in life and an expose book in the wings would all die on the vine waiting for the next pick. It would also take away the shtick of the 3rd white male choice they will otherwise certainly ramp up.

          The only thing they’d really have left would be the threat of Handmaid’s Tale, but they teased with that one last time so it’s grown a bit stale and kinda hard to pin on a woman.

          1. Will they attend in costume again?

          2. Can they attack a Catholic when they desperately need the latino vote, which Trump has drastically improved his standing with? Trump is fairly popular and growing more popular with male Latinos, even politico admits this. Attacking a Catholic will piss off female Latinas.

            1. Even better, Trump’s other choice is a Latino Catholic woman.

          3. they’re already saying Barrett belongs to the sect that inspired the Handmaid’s Tale. Didn’t know she was Muslim.

    2. “The Man must be bad indeed who can look upon the events of the American Revolution without feeling the warmest gratitude towards the great Author of the Universe whose divine interposition was so frequently manifested in our behalf.” — George Washington

  4. I predicted Trump would replace RBG.

    Next will be Breyer being replaced by a Trump 2nd term nomination.

    Thomas will retire so Trump can replace him.

    “I love it when a plan comes together”.

    1. Lefty nonsense has so backfired against them.

      1. We must destroy progressivism while we have the opportunity.

    2. IF this were to come to pass, it would mean 7 conservative justices on the high court.

      Perhaps we might be able to save our republic after all.

      This isn’t to say that conservative justices are perfect. They aren’t. They’ve made their fair share of liberty-busting decisions too. But on the whole conservative justices do seem more apt to respect individual liberty than liberal justices.

      1. Why do you think “7 conservative justices” would save the Republic?

        It is a bad sign when one has to point to unelected individuals to “save the Republic”.

        1. Fair.

          Perhaps my rhetoric was over the top, but my overarching point still stands.

          In reality, the high court is the last defense of bad law. That’s where the constitutionality of laws are ultimately decided (although one could argue that Federal Circuit Courts are more important barriers because they decide many, many more cases than SCOTUS, and are legally bound to hear them unlike SCOTUS). A left high court would be a disaster for many liberties, I would think. The high court ultimately tests the same winds as politicians, only over a much longer period, and being more bound by precedent. Conservative justices seem more apt to test them even longer, which is a very good thing when we’re talking about deciding law.

          That, and conservatives objectively loathe the idea of a living constitution. It doesn’t mean just what you want it to at a given moment.

          Conservative courts bring you Heller and Macdonald. Not perfect decisions; few are. And of course we can point towards horrible decisions like Obamacare and surely many others that have been held up by Roberts’ court.

          But progressive courts bring you decisions like RvW, which even if you ostensibly agree with the outcome, is an abortion of sense and logic. It’s a horrible decision. Even RBG knew that. They also bring you gems like Buck v Bell and Korematsu v US. If liberals ran the current court, people would be forced to pay for birth control as a fundamental right (Hobby Lobby), not to mention the court would have severely cut our gun rights (Heller; Macdonald). Have you read Breyer’s dissent in Heller? One could argue, although, that the court has not done enough since those cases to more firmly secure those rights, and by most accounts it’s a conservative justices that is the hold up on that.

          So no. A conservative court is not a perfect court. They certainly present problems of their own. But in the real world, it sure beats the shit out of a progressive court and the damage it would inflict on individual liberties.

          1. A conservative court might allow red states to outlaw abortion and enforce Christian prayers in public schools. Those appointees are in no way guaranteed to keep Republicans from inflicting damage on individual liberties. In fact, it’s quite likely to protect big businesses and the donor class at the cost of individual liberties. Did you read the case of the frozen trucker?

            1. If the states in this day and age adopted Christian prayers in public schools, that would hasten the demise of government schooling in those states, which would be all to the good.

            2. I’d like to see how much money from the “donor class” is going to progressives. There are a lot of rich lefties out there.

              1. A total of 94 billionaires or their spouses have donated to former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, a Forbes analysis of federal campaign records shows.


            3. “enforce Christian prayers in public schools”

              Oh FFS. You people think in parodies.

              1. All they are asking for is to allow it. Democrats turn this into force.

                1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                  Here’s what I do…>> CashApp

              2. It’s a threat/projection. Allow their religion to continue its forward march and kids in elementary school will be forced to kneel while they pledge allegiance to the country that brought equality to everyone regardless of race, gender creed, nation of origin, sex, gender, orientation.

            4. Yes, a conservative court might do everything that scares you, and prolly times a zillion bazhillion. Prolly also make the death penalty for weed, put black people in chains, throw grandmas off the cliff, and start up the draft again. And those justices would probably even build brick smoke stacks with their bare hands.

              The old stereotypes of every liberal’s hyperbolic fears from the 1960’s are dead. Democrats currently fair far better from big corporate and big donors than Republicans ever have. Quit reading those tired old talking points and try to catch up.

            5. A conservative court might allow red states to outlaw abortion and enforce Christian prayers in public schools.

              So, move.

              1. This. God forbid we have an America with options. Don’t like it? Move to California. The weather is lovely there.

          2. Well put.

        2. It is a bad sign, but the republic needs saving because of your progressive friends. Which is best for them. As the likely alternative will be their deaths by the tens of thousands.

        3. That’s easy: organizations cannot function with crooks in power. The liberal justices are “crooks” in the sense that they don’t follow our laws and abuse their power. The way to fix this is to remove the crooks and replace them with people who actually are bound by the rules we, the people, have set for them.

        4. Someone has to save the Republic if Harris wins.

      2. Conservative justices on the SCOTUS would simply slow down the rot of government that accumulates with Lefties trying to control Americans.

        Its really the reason that the Civil War didn’t happen until 1861. Democrats didnt have the power to start a war until they had new states like Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc on their side.

        A Civil War between the original 13 states would have been over super fast.

        1. The Civil War didn’t happen until 1861 because Lincoln wasn’t inaugurated until then.

  5. “Put differently, by nominating Barrett, Trump would be throwing a heap of red meat to his supporters on the religious right.”

    Just like what happened with Roberts, and Alito, and Thomas, and Thomas, and Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

  6. And so it begins. Just ordered some antique French guillotines. Shipping was outrageous, but god dammit: some still have blood on them!

    Amy Coney Barrett

    She’s alright, but her husband is kind of cute.

    1. Ha ha ha ha ha

  7. Funny how liberal nominees always get a pass from the media yet conservatives..get flamed. Especially if they are Catholic/Christian and not Jewish or origins outside europe. Very insightful of the media and their hatred towards many Americans.

    1. The MSm and elitists in America still push the Royal family narrative as if Americans give two shits about that inbred tyrant family.

      America kicked Britain out of the USA, so fuck the Royal family.

      1. Leftists and progressives are europhiles, who resent the hell out of being “provincials”.
        It’s one of the sources of their characteristic anti-Americanism

        1. I think that’s a broad statement, but if the conservation is about the big tent, I’d tend to agree.

        2. Yep. And this vile woman actually went to foreign dictatorships (like Turkey of all places) and openly and publicly bad-mouthed the United States and our constitution. How the hell can you uphold an oath to defend a constitution that you openly admit you don’t really support or believe in??

          Good riddance rai bad rubbish, and thank you very much for not retiring under Obama.

          1. At least she pretended she was trying to be constitutional and went through the work of creating an argument. Conversely Kagan and Soto tend to be of the mind [actually stated by Obama] that they were appointed for social justice and for their “heart”, not their deference to an actual Constitution. Several statements by both would suggest they both view that as an unfortunate old document that gets in their way.

    2. At the NYT, the commenters are wailing and gnashing their teeth about what they have to do to stop the Republicans from destroying our Constitutional democracy and trying to seize power by any means necessary. Even though the Democrats are the ones proposing extra-legal means such as stacking the court and nationwide strikes and violence, and the Republicans are merely planning to replace a deceased Justice, as is always done (with the exception of Scalia in 2016, a delay the Democrats roundly criticized.)

  8. I would link some of RBG worst SCOTUS opinions but they are all bad, so why bother.

    Even when she sided with Gorsuch, she did so to anti-Trump.

    That lady always hated the US Constitution and the gov limitations it listed.

    1. That’s just partisan claptrap.

      1. No grasshopper, it is not.

      2. It may be partisan, but RBG was no fan of your constitution.

      3. You poor Lefties.

        RBG never and I mean never struck down a federal law as unconstitutional.

        Not the Controlled Substances Act. Not ObamaCare….

        1. Ruth bater cancer cunt did try to get rid of the right to bear arms. So she loves federal laws but not individual rights

      4. RBG has expressed her contempt for the US Constitution publicly, in interviews. She has also clearly stated many times that she viewed it as her job to advance a progressive political agenda in the court. So, no, not “partisan claptrap”.

  9. Daniel Cameron.

    If T nominates someone, he should make sure he nominates someone that will leave the left twisting.

    Who better, at this particular moment in history, than another black man to sit on the court for the left to call an Uncle Tom and reveal their racism to the world.

    Plus, he’s done a fine job holding our governor’s feet to the fire with his CV decrees.

    1. Who better, at this particular moment in history, than another black manwoman to sit on the court for the left to call an Uncle Tom and reveal their racism to the world.
      There we go.

      1. Perhaps.

        I was going based off of his list, and I didn’t see any black women that I recognized.

        My guess is there aren’t very many black women conservative prospects.

        1. Neomi Rao. She wasn’t on the list but is a combination Indian-American, converted Jew. checks all the boxes and will make the Democrats head spin.

          1. They would have no qualms about destroying an Indian American or a Jewish person. At all.

            1. It would just be fun to watch them undertake it.

        2. Skin color doesn’t matter, and who cares what’s under their robes?
          Thomas has been the best Justice by far. Hopefully he never retires.

          1. Hopefully he does.

            Not that he’s a bad justice, he very good much of the time, but clearly the current situation could be turned on its head.

    2. Because who cares about jurisprudence. It’s more important to PWN THE LEFT.

      1. Wow, you are really bothered by being PWNed by everyone here, aren’t you, Jeff?

        1. Everyone pwns Pedo Jeffy. So he’s sensitive about it.

      2. I’d argue that in general, the jurisprudence is secondary.

        Not because it isn’t more important, it absolutely is, but because one should safely assume that he’s going off of his list. The very list he updated on September 9 of this year. And to be on that list, there is a requisite. And that is conservative. Yes, there’s a spectrum of conservative and how they go about their business. They certainly don’t all arrive at their conclusions via the same processes. Outcomes will sometimes be different, though probably mostly the same.

        And right now, there is no jurisprudence for us to consider. We have no control over the nominee. We can only react to what we receive. So worrying about the jurisprudence for us is fleeting. It’s all ether right now until someone is nominated.

        So politics is what we have, knowing full well this is a political process. One that is going to get very, very ugly. And so trying to imagine the best candidate for political purposes is 1) all we have, and 2) actually productive.

        Nominating a black person for SCOTUS right now would make it a very awkward situation for the left. Sure, the left doesn’t even bother to hide it’s racism because it doesn’t have to. Every major institution from academia to the media and entertainment provides cover. They called Thomas an Uncle Tom openly. I’d bet they’d do it again. But to those independents who really don’t go along with liberal forms of racism any more than they’d go with any other form of it, it gives them a reason to think about things, and that changes the calculus for the election.

        Your average suburban mom probably doesn’t like Trump. And she probably won’t vote for him this time (maybe). She probably blacked her profile pic out on Facebook for Floyd, but she doesn’t like the riots either. And if she sees Team Blue flying their racism flag proudly after all of their “AMERICA IS NOTHING BUT A LAND OF WHITE SUPREMACY” schtick these last several months, she’s probably not going to be enthusiastic about voting for Joe, the little girl sniffer.

        So yes. Until we get an actual nominee who has jurisprudence to contemplate, contemplating how to PWN the libs is the best track.

      3. It’s not pwning the left that matters, it’s saving the country from them.

        1. Your’e not wrong Jeff.
          Destroying the left’s evil influence is the most important thing to me personally.

      4. Why are you always hitching about peolle owning the left when you claim you aren’t a leftist? If you aren’t, who cares?

      5. “Because who cares about jurisprudence. It’s more important to PWN THE LEFT.”

        Whining suits you; it’s about as honest as you ever get.

        1. Fat Jeff’s tears aren’t just salty, they’re also sweet. Because of all the sugary treats he eats to make himself fat.

      6. Being anti-leftist is a civic duty these days.

    3. Appointing a Catholic has just as big of an implication. The Ds need the Hispanic vote. If not they lose Arizona, Nevada and Florida easily and put New Mexico and Colorado in the play column. Even Politico admits Trump is doing surprisingly well with male Latinos and young black men. Biden only leads by a substantial margin with female Latinas and female blacks. Start bad mouthing Catholics and the Democrats support among female Hispanics declines. Start bad mouthing Christians at all, and support among older black women decline.

    4. It looks like it’s going to be a conservative Catholic woman, either one who adopted several orphans, or a Latina. Either way, good move.

      Other benefit: the Democrats are hair-on-fire crazy over this and considering moves like another impeachment, packing the courts, etc. I’m sure that will help them at the polls!

    5. Candice Owens would be an amusing pick.

  10. I’m not going to rejoice or express glee over her passing.

    If Trump nominates someone, I hope they’re in the Scalia mould.

    1. Scalia was good.

      Gorsuch is better. At least from a libertarian standpoint.

      I do miss a good Scalia-style written evisceration, however.

      1. Gorsuch is libertarian like Gary Johnson was libertarian. Compulsory cakes for everyone!

        1. That’s a lot more Libertarian than RBG.

        2. If only we had a Supreme Court decision about baking cakes to know where Gorsuch stands on the subject…

          1. Think he is referring to Gorsuch changing the definition of sex. It was pretty egregious.

            1. That’s almost an understatement.

      2. Scalia was good.

        And bad.

    2. I’ll express happiness that she is off the Supreme Court; she was unsuitable for the job.

      It was RBG’s selfish choice and lust for power that made her retirement coincide with her death; that shouldn’t shield her from well-deserved posthumous criticism. She should have retired a few years ago, or at least once she was diagnosed with a terminal disease.

  11. Mitch didn’t even wait til her body was cold before making his statement to fill her seat.

    1. Politics are dirty as fuck.

      If you’re surprised, you really shouldn’t be.

      As a normal human being with normal morals, I’m with you.

    2. Cocaine Mitch, eternal scumbag.

      1. Fuck off scumbag. Your presence here just reaffirms my conservatism. I will literally die to preserve this republic. You will dither and whine like a bitch.

        1. that you think the unelected judiciary is the key to preserving the republic is half the problem right there.

          1. Having a judiciary that actually follows the Constitution would help, yes.

          2. What are your thoughts on court packing, Jeff?

            1. Well, it’s not really ‘court packing’, it’s kinda making sure things are ‘fair’.
              Did I do that right?

              1. I’ll simplify for jeff.

                Court packing fine if done by biden, bad if done by an evil right winger.

          3. chem, consider the following.

            Structurally, a POTUS is supposed to have far less power. SCOTUS is the only institution that can pare back the Executive’s power and make it stick. A conservative leaning SCOTUS is the only way presently to limit Executive power (see Chevron re-examination).

            Structurally, Congress is supposed to make laws…not delegate rule-making (law making by another name) to the Executive. A conservative SCOTUS is the only way presently to force the Congress to do their enumerated job.

            A progressive SCOTUS will never vote to limit federal government power. We know this based on past performance.

            I am not thrilled that our best option is an unelected judiciary, but it is reality nonetheless.

          4. In the last week we have seen two democratic judicial majorities in 2 states change voting rules on their own you dumb fuck. So yes.

          5. You’re mad because you lost control of your own weapon.

        2. I’m flattered that “my presence” is something notable to you, considering how infrequently I comment here.

          1. Well, using the StackOfCoins sock anyway.

    3. He’s said all along that if there was an opening in 2020, he would move on any appointment sent up by Trump. No surprise.

    4. Schumer waiting 30 whole seconds.

    5. Her body has been cold for years.

    6. “Mitch didn’t even wait til her body was cold”

      Good. I hope Mitch prepared everything months ago.

      1. After everything the democrats have pulled, especially over the last four year, I have no mercy or consideration for them. They’re the enemy now. Period.

    7. The left didn’t even wait until her body was cold before they started threatening violence and rebellion if Trump appoints her successor.

      1. And they had “her last wish” soundbite ready to go… 30 minutes after news broke?

        1. I’m still confused on how any SCOTUS justice’s wish in to regards to their successor is even remotely relevant.

    8. Good. Since Republicans and Democrats are supposed to be implacable enemies now, he needs to take every advantage he can to help his side and hurt his enemies.

    9. RBG didn’t even retire when she was diagnosed with a terminal illness, and she even lied about it. RBG’s conduct was reprehensible and deserves condemnation, not respect.

      Good for Mitch to move forward on this quickly.

    10. And her grand daughter barely waited till after her last breath to issue her fondest hope, that she not be replaced until after the election [which was the only thing keeping her alive for the past four cancer riddled years].

      So take you moral high ground and shove it up your partisan ass.

    1. Rao was born in Detroit, Michigan, to mother Zerin Rao and father Jehangir Narioshang Rao, both Parsi physicians from India. After marrying her husband, Rao converted to Judaism.

      So if she gets the nod she probably becomes a WASP evangelical according to the CNN ticker.

  12. I’ve made $84,000 so far this year working and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing HERE? learn More

    1. No, a US Supreme Court Justice makes almost $260,000.

  13. Ted Cruz (IIRC) warned Harry Reid that killing off the judicial filibuster would come back to haunt them. He was right.

    1. There’s nothing the left hates more than facing consequences

      1. That’s because they assume they’ll always be in power when they do it.

        1. That, and Team Red has a history of rolling over at the very first sign of someone calling them a racist.

          They’re not rolling over anymore.

          1. Miss Lindsey apparently said something about “hold my words against me” when the Garland nomination was going on, so all the leftists on Twitter are harping on some tweet he made about “i understand where Trump’s coming from” – only now, there’s just as many conservatives in the comments making it quite clear that if he waffles on confirmation, they are NOT going to vote for him.
            Will be interesting to see whose spine he develops

            1. Everyone who cares about the country should help pile on any republican senator that might not vote to confirm a Trump SCOTUS nominee.

      2. The whole progressive essence is driven by the urge to negate consequences. To them, no human is ever personally responsible. Do as much stupid shit as you like, and someone will fix things for you (and make you feel better by blaming somebody else).

        1. You’re close, but not quite. If you’re a business or property owner and you have skin in the game, you can not only be held responsible, but milked for every penny you have above what they think you deserve in order to mitigate the consequences of the poor choices of their constituency.

          An exception can be made if you donate the correct amount to the correct politicians. Then you get rules made specifically to protect you and your business and free money siphoned off of the business and property owners that didn’t show fealty.

    2. It was Mitch McConnell that warned Reid. How ironic.

  14. I wouldn’t wish a nomination on Barrett, but I’d wish it on the country, which would benefit even if she would have to put up with a bit of hassle.

    1. “put up with a bit of hassle”
      Nice euphemism for dealing with death threats and angry mobs threatening her 7 children

      1. Yeah, Trump may even be calling up potential nominees only to get a “no, thank you.”

        But maybe not, because being on the Supreme Court means the Volokh Conspiracy honors your birthday.

        1. Then I’m definitely not interested.

        2. Yeah, the honor the birthday thing is a real winner. That will decide the question. 🙂

      2. On the other hand, decent people with 7 children may actually be willing to take on this burden because they would like to have their children to have a future, and not grow up in the kind of sh*thole that RBG and her ilk want to turn the US into.

  15. I suppose if you want to increase voter turnout among young liberals, you could force through the nomination of a social conservative before the election. I don’t think it would make much difference to the evangelicals who will mostly hold their nose and vote for Trump anyway.

    1. Turnout is overrated. If you are young and progressive and Trump wasn’t enough to get you to the polls, ACB won’t either.

      People tend to favor the confirmation of justices, and will be perplexed if a mild mannered woman is portrayed as a monster.

      1. No, this will definitely help Biden in the election. There are millions of leftist voters that aren’t enthusiastic enough to get out and vote for Biden, but may be enthusiastic enough to get out and vote for a Supreme Court nomination. Anyone on the right that’s enthusiastic enough to vote for a Supreme Court nomination was already getting out to vote for Trump. This is further compounded by the fact that Trump has to pick a real, concrete appointment with real, concrete baggage while Biden can hide behind a hypothetical Dem appointment; the hypothetical candidate will always look better than the real one.

        I still don’t think it will be enough for Biden. There’ still a month left for surprises to come out and the news cycle to be washed clean. Biden will still lose and Trump will still win and RBG will get replaced by Trump’s choice, but watch for Dems especially to milk this for all it’s worth with the early voters.

        1. I was undecided at first, but with the threats of violence, promise of fraud, and preparation for lawfare, the seat needs to be filled.
          We’ll need a full SCOTUS to stop the left.

          1. The Justice would have to be seated prior to the coming election litigation to hear oral arguments and take a vote.

        2. if the spot is already filled, why would they be motivated? They’d be more motivated by an empty spot.

          1. agree. an empty seat is more motivating than a filled one.
            Team R could still fill the seat post election and pre January in a parting FYTW gesture

          2. Right, but that’s if there’s no empty spot. You’re assuming that the Republicans are willing and able to fill the empty spot, and furthermore that the Democrats won’t demand/promise new empty spots to fill afterwards. Like I said, Democrats are going to milk this for all it’s worth primarily to gin up the enthusiasm that Biden can’t, and that includes promising to either pack the Supreme Court or to impeach Trumps new appointment and fill it with their own pick.

            And that’s if Republicans can even manage to fill the seat before the election, which I doubt. They won’t get any crossover from Democrats this time around, and they’ll almost certainly have at least three Republicans voting against any Trump appointment before the election. And even if they could get the votes, it may not even be politically prudent to push this now. For one, if the Supreme Court seat helps the Dems more than the Reps, then the reasonable thing to do would be to bury it as an issue rather than bring it front and center, and staging a vote on a Supreme Court appointment weeks before the election is definitely going to do the latter rather than the former. Further, the Democrats have been running this entire election on burning down our existing institutions and norms (sometimes literally), and it’s ruined their favorability. If Republicans try to push a Supreme Court confirmation right before a Presidential election, that could have the same effect for them, regardless of how unprecedented it would actually be.

            I think the best thing Trump and Senate Republicans can do is to just take the hit and wait until after the election to nominate a Justice and start the confirmation process. Revealing the pick ahead of time just gives the left a single target to focus on, and that would let them make the whole rest of the election just a referendum on that one person, with all the lies and slander the left can muster for the next six weeks.

            1. Also to add to the second paragraph, making the election about the Supreme Court confirmation gives the Democrats a lot of blue tofu in the form of abortion and other culture war-type issues. The Republican’s greatest strength going into these elections are the riots and the Democrats’ endorsement of the riots, and any distraction from that will only help Democrats peel some support away from Republicans.

              1. “promising to either pack the Supreme Court or to impeach Trumps new appointment ”
                That also motivates team R to turnout the vote to stop that from happening and plays into the “burning down our existing institutions and norms” narrative. I agree that team R trying to jam thru the nomination pre election is a bad look for them

                1. It does, but the Rs are already motivated and the Ds aren’t. The extra motivation helps Rs a little but it helps the Ds a lot, thus it’s better for Ds than for Rs.

                  1. Depends on how they attack the nomination. Biden is underperforming with both blacks and Hispanics (politico ran a warning story about it yesterday). If they attack say Barrett on her catholicism that won’t play well with the Hispanic community, which Trump is doing surprisingly well with. Attacking her for her Christian values won’t play well with older black women (Trump is already doing well with young black men). He has been focusing on outreach to both communities and a number of Progressives admit it is paying off more than they wished for. Attack someone for being Catholic and or Christian and the ads write themselves.

              2. Leaving the seat open is exactly how you make it about the Supreme Court

            2. Democrats have already threatened to pack the court with no action from trump. Why care about packing the court with an action from trump?

              Democrats are largely about doing whatever gives them power. Truml shouldn’t change his minds in belief they won’t continue said practice.

              He is perfectly in his right to nominate. Obama nominated in the last year of his presidency. The senate is in their right to vote or not to vote. They have a co equal role in the process.

              Nothing blue check marks say should be considered.

              1. You can say the same thing about impeachement: the Democrat-held House is perfectly within its right to impeach Trump for any reason they want, and nothing right wing pundits say should be considered. But how is that reasoning helping them in their elections? Why is no one on the left gleefully talking about their stunning victory against Trump in February when they put that asterisk next to his name? Probably because it doesn’t play well with centrist voters, the voters that Trump and the Republicans need to win, and the ones that are going to turn out in droves to elect them. There’s no sense in giving them a reason not to vote for Trump or Republicans in general, nor is there any sense in playing up an issue that would be better to downplay. The Democrats are in trouble because they’re stuck in their blue checkmark echo chamber that tells them to burn it all down and go more extreme. There’s no sense in following them down that path.

                Whatever the Republicans can do before the election they can do better after the election. There’s no sense rushing something they already have in the bag.

                1. “Whatever the Republicans can do before the election they can do better after the election.”

                  Disagree, if only because that 9th vote is going to be needed to settle a slew of state voting cases that will arise from this election.

                  Trump’s base wants him to put forth this nomination now. He hasn’t gotten to where he is by screwing them very often. If Romney and Murkowski—Collins is likely toast anyways—enjoy being US Senators, they’ll find a way to not piss off their base by voting No.

                  Watch Murkowski. She was pulling this undecided shit during Kavanaugh’s confirmation, only to vote Present when the price got acceptable. She’ll do the same thing again.

                  Romney thinks he can fade any bad press over this until 2024. Maybe. McCain had the luxury of shortly being beyond any further sanction in this life, when he decided to be an asshole about defunding Obamacare. Romney does not.

                  1. Disagree, if only because that 9th vote is going to be needed to settle a slew of state voting cases that will arise from this election.
                    That’s a good point that I didn’t consider, but even that doesn’t necessarily justify jamming through an appointment. There are currently 5 R appointments vs 3 D appointments on the court. If you consider Roberts and Kavanaugh to be swing votes, then an extra R appointment won’t be enough to make up for that. The one case where an extra appointment would help would be a 4-4 decision, and I’m not sure what happens then or how likely that would even be. For the benefit of winning an edge case like that, the Republicans may be costing themselves more battles in court as more races become close enough to steal because fewer people turned out to vote for Trump.

                    As for the Senate after the election, the map looks fine for Republicans. Republicans are over represented this class, but they’re still seem likely to hold their 53 seat majority, and that’s assuming Collins loses her race. Even if Republicans don’t hold the Senate as strongly as they do now, there’s still as much time between the election and the next Congress as there is between now and the election. If they can jam it through before the election they can jam it through just as easily after the election but before the next Congress.

                    As for Murkowski, she’s so thoroughly embedded in some sort of political machine that she’s never getting voted out. I’m not sure what’s going on up there, but she was even successfully primaried out and still managed to hold on to her seat. Romney, I’m not sure.

                    1. They’re both just awful.

                2. Except the constitution doesn’t say for any reason. It says for high crimes and misdemeanors. That actually has judicial precedence. It is a form of limits on impeachment. Because democrats decided to stretch the definition to include things that are not high crimes or misdemeanors doesn’t mean they were right. They can pass a law making talking to Ukraine illegal or misdemeanor, but they didnt.

                  The analogy isn’t even close to the clarity of the appointment clause.

                  1. None of that seemed to matter, because House Democrats still managed to ram it through. And then they boasted about it for a week. And now it’s been memory holed, like it never even happened, because something that isn’t the law seems to be against it (remember, the law doesn’t matter to them, otherwise they wouldn’t have gone through with impeachment in the first place).

                    Once again, it’s not about whether the Republicans can legally do it or not. We both agree that they can. I’m just saying that they shouldn’t, in part because the Democrats just demonstrated how to jump off a cliff and I don’t think the Republicans should follow them.

                    1. The appointment clause is clear. I have no qualms with following it word for word.

                      The only squealing pigs last time were democrats claiming the clause included a requirement to vote. That language is found nowhere.

                3. If you think leaving the seat open will motivate more people to vote for Trump than otherwise, I disagree but it’s a legitimate point.
                  But you seem to be saying they shouldn’t act because fear of the Ds or losing support.
                  This is wrong.
                  Appeasement doesn’t work.
                  Trump and the senate owe it to their constituents to fill the seat.
                  It is their job.

                  1. It’s not appeasement. It’s mainly about keeping the Dems unmotivated about their uninspiring candidate and keeping swing voters focused on everything that the Democrats are doing wrong (the economy, coronavirus lockdowns, wild fires, riots, surging crime rates, gun control, etc.). Putting the spotlight on something that isn’t any of that is exactly the opposite of what Republicans should be doing, especially when the spotlight is instead going to be on something that motivates Democrats to get out and vote.

                    Republicans are already motivated, so the extra motivation from a Supreme Court vacancy isn’t going to help Republican candidates much. But Democrats are anywhere from unmotivated to outright demoralized, so any push to get them out and vote is going to help Democrat candidates far more.

                    1. It absolutely is appeasement. It’s exactly what every leftist is demanding and threatening violence for.
                      You think the left can be more motivated?
                      They’re foaming at the mouths with motivation.
                      Literally Hitler doesn’t leave much room.
                      I’ll grant that there might be a fraction who are discouraged by Biden and the riots but will suddenly become activated because SCOTUS, but i think that’s a small fraction.
                      And leaving the seat open is MORE motivation to semi-normals than filling it.
                      How does this not compute?

            3. “…Democrats won’t demand/promise new empty spots to fill afterwards…”

              So Trump should wait b/c the extortion of court packing?

              1. I’m saying that Trump filling this vacancy won’t take a Supreme Court vacancy off the table.

                1. There is a current vacancy. Full stop.

                  If the election is judicially challenged there needs to be a deciding vote. If the judicial changes to election laws from Penn or Mich gets to the USSC there needs to be a decision.

                  1. See above. This is a concern, but I don’t think the benefit that another Trump appointment brings will outweigh the cost of potential lost votes.

                    1. Lost votes from whom? He will lose votes from his base if he doesn’t put forth a nomination before the election. Not doing so, out of comity or some spirit of fair play, is something that a Romney or Paul Ryan would do. That milquetoast, wishy-washy, “They’ll respect us if we maintain the high road,” demeanor, was wholly rejected by the election of Trump over ¡Jeb!

                      His base is tired of playing nice, and getting fucked for it. They are expecting him to still be Presidential, and part of being President is timely filling vacancies on the Supreme Court. Besides, if the Left loses their shit over this as much as I expect them to, the continued rioting will piss off undecided voters more than they’ll be annoyed at Trump being unseemly in nominating a Justice so soon after her death.

                    2. Lost votes from the kind of voters that were turned off from Democrats because of antics like their impeachment, or the kind of voters that won’t like the real or fabricated dirt that they hear about the appointee, or the kind of voters that care about legal abortion but were more concerned about their city burning down around them before abortion became an election issue again, or the kind of voter that couldn’t get fired up for Biden but will get fired up for the new threat to womankind or whatever (the outrage over Trump himself can only last so long for so many people).

                      Again, this doesn’t have to be a milquetoast wishy washy move to “civility”, it should be a calculated move to maximize the Republicans’ advantage going into the election. This doesn’t have to be sold as taking the high road, it can just as easily be sold as a normal appointment process looking for the right candidate or considering the nominees’ families or just taking the pure partisan route of not giving the Democrats a single target to focus on ahead of elections.

                      Riots are now dying down because Trump has started to prosecute rioters at the federal level. The rioters aren’t so tough now that they might be held responsible for their actions. With this in play, I don’t think there will be any new riots no matter what happens before the elections. Thus, no new riots to exploit.

                      I want to see Trump stick it to the left just as much as you do. It would be incredibly satisfying to watch as Trump and the Senate Republicans rub it in the Democrats faces and tell them to suck it. But making the next few weeks about revenge or making the Dems eat it or even about just appointing a SC justice as normal takes away from the overpowering message Republicans have right now and puts the national conversation on a level playing field for the Democrats, and I’d rather pass up the one appointment if it means Trump has a better chance of getting two (maybe even three?) appointments after the election.

                    3. “Lost votes from the kind of voters that were turned off from Democrats because of antics like their impeachment, or the kind of voters that won’t like the real or fabricated dirt that they hear about the appointee, or the kind of voters that care about legal abortion but were more concerned about their city burning down around them before abortion became an election issue again, or the kind of voter that couldn’t get fired up for Biden but will get fired up for the new threat to womankind or whatever”

                      So these voters won’t be motivated by the next president having a vacant seat to fill, but will be motivated by this president already filling that seat?
                      How does that make any sense?
                      Use logic here

                    4. I am using logic here. The logic says that Trump voters are already motivated to go out and vote for Trump, while Democrats aren’t motivated to go out and vote for Biden. ANYTHING that can motivate leftist voters is bad, no matter how much it also motivates rightist voters, because the right is already motivated. There’s nothing Republicans can do to take a SC appointment off the table (again, Dem voters assume they’ll just pack the court if they get half a chance, so filling the vacancy won’t do it), so the best play is simply to downplay the SC as an issue, burying it however possible, and that includes not making it headline news for the next six weeks with a media circus around appointment hearings.

                      The less the left hears about the Supreme Court, the more they have to hear about how awful their candidate and Dem leadership in general is, while the less the right hears about the Supreme Court, the more they get to hear about what a great job Trump and other Republicans are doing. But if the Supreme Court is all anyone hears about, then it’s a wash. I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand.

                    5. You think it’s logical that more people will vote based on a filled seat than a vacant one?

                    6. I think whether the seat is filled or vacant is irrelevant.

                    7. “I think whether the seat is filled or vacant is irrelevant”

                      That’s completely contrary to your argument.
                      And the left with the media isn’t just going to pretend an open SC seat doesn’t exist – they’d talk about it endlessly to raise money and “get out the vote”.
                      That seat being unfilled would be much more motivation than talk about fascist Republicans destroying democracy by filling the seat would be.

                    8. Then why not fill the seat? Then if Trump loses, we still have a good judge on the court, instead of who Biden would pick.

                    9. “That’s completely contrary to your argument.”

                      No, it’s central to my argument. If simply filling the seat would be enough to negate it as an election issue, then all Republicans would have to do is fill it, but what I’m saying is that it won’t be enough, so there’s no point in bothering right now.

                      “And the left with the media isn’t just going to pretend an open SC seat doesn’t exist – they’d talk about it endlessly to raise money and “get out the vote”.”

                      Of course they will, but that doesn’t mean Republicans have to play along. Instead of focusing on confirming a judge, they could focus on police reform, or legalizing marijuana, or tax cuts, or investigating Antifa, or even just campaigning and working on their ground game. Just yesterday (I think) we were discussing in these comments how Nancy Pelosi was shooting herself in the foot by keeping her freshmen representatives from going back to their districts to campaign. Why should Mitch McConnell make the same mistake?

                      “Then why not fill the seat? Then if Trump loses, we still have a good judge on the court, instead of who Biden would pick.”
                      Firstly, Trump is going to win. In the parallel universe where he doesn’t, there’s still more time between the election and the inauguration than there is between now and the election. Apparently, that will be plenty of time to confirm a justice before the inauguration, so from that standpoint it doesn’t matter if they start now or after the election.

                      The reasons why later and not now essentially boil down to the benefits not outweighing the costs. Yes, they can spend time focusing on the Supreme Court, but that would come at the expense of focusing on the economy, the lockdowns, the riots, the unhinged left, the general incompetence of Democrats running cities and states, etc. A confirmation battle would be motivational for both Democrats and Republicans, but Republicans are already motivated to get out and vote, where as this could give Democrats the motivation they didn’t have before.

                    10. The flaw in your logic is you missed that there are two parts to the deal: A POTUS, and a Senate. Today, Team R has both parts. This is what you are missing. There is something to the saying, “A bird in hand is worth two in the bush”.

                      Breyer is 82. The next one down is Thomas, who is 72. IF POTUS Trump wins (not a foregone conclusion), and has a Senate to work with, he might get a crack at replacing Breyer.

                    11. There are no benefits whatsoever to delay in filling the Supreme Court vacancy.
                      Full stop.

                    12. Here’s a sitting US congressman advocating delay:


                      If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021.

                      It’s that simple.

                    13. Here’s a sitting US senator also threatening us:


                      If Republicans recklessly & reprehensibly force a SCOTUS vote before the election—nothing is off the table.

                    14. And you think it’s the smart move to do what they want?

                      Incentives matter

    2. Young people don’t vote, they’ll just burn down more stuff.

      1. But they think that is voting.

        1. In a way it is voting — at least it gets out the vote for the Republicans — but that wasn’t what you meant, was it?

          1. No, I think the sometimes peaceful protestors really believe that the way to change our legal system is by shouting and burning. That may change the way people feel, but at long as we generally follow the rule of law, then actually changing policy and code requires sanctioned participation in governance.

            1. They are bullies.
              And for the majority of their existence, the right has been cowards.
              They think they can intimidate and tantrum their way to getting what they want, because it’s always worked.
              But Trump changed the game. He fights back. So they’re doubling down on what they know, because it’s all they know how to do.

            2. well lately they are protesting and rioting for police reform, and trying to mobilize people to vote to change how these cities and their police forces are run. which would mean they would have to stop voting for Democrats, but they don’t seem to understand that.

    3. Easily countered by making marijuana a Schedule 3 drug in mid October. Not only would it be a kick in the balls to the dems behind the withdrawn reform bill, but the kiddos would be too busy getting high to remember to vote.

      1. Deschedule pot entirely and let the states figure out what to do with it. Also, formally recognize Taiwan. Also get the Saudis to normalize relations with Israel.

        Keep the hits coming. Trump can’t give Biden a leg to stand on. If Trump can point to win after win, he walks away with the win.

        1. That would be quite the hat trick to pull off those 3 things

          1. All three things fall under the authority of the Executive Branch. Not saying it’d be easy, but it’s all on him.

    4. concern trolling duly noted.

      1. That was my take on it too.

        How can someone think that leaving an open spot on the court will somehow provide less motivation for the left to use SCOTUS as a lynchpin?

        It would instill more motivation to vote Blue so they can fill the seat. Filling the seat now takes the wind out of those sails.

        1. Because the left expects to pack courts next year if they don’t get their way now, and they remind themselves of this every time they hear about the Supreme Court.

          1. They started talking about packing the court with Kavanaugh.

            1. Right, which is why it doesn’t even matter whether Trump can fill that seat before the election or not. The difference now is that the Supreme Court is at the front of everyone’s mind.

              1. The Ds are all in.
                They’ve given up on persuasion. That should be obvious.
                Plan A was impeachment.
                Plan B was vote fraud.
                Plan A didn’t work, and I think they’re starting to realize they won’t be able to pull off the utterly massive amount of vote fraud they’re going to need.
                They are dead set now on
                Plan C: burn it all down.

                They LITERALLY tell us this every day.

                1. It frightening, isn’t it? We have elected leaders overtly threatening those who govern and the governed themselves.

          2. So T and the Senate is supposed to give in to blackmail?

            Nice court you have. Shane if something were to happen to it.

            Court packing is a threat, and no politician should fold to threats. Not when said politician(s) has every right to nominate someone, and another every right to confirm said nominee.

            What you’re suggesting is giving in to blackmail.

            Fuck that.

    5. I suppose if you want to increase voter turnout among young liberals…

      Most of whom couldn’t even name the three branches of the federal government.

      …you could force through the nomination of a social conservative before the election.

      And why exactly would that motivate anyone to vote who isn’t already?

    6. Democrats should be more concerned about how moderate voters perceive their reaction to the nomination of, say, a hispanic woman to SCOTUS, and the death threats and subversion of institutions they have contemplated.

  16. Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear Here══════❥❥❥❥Check my site.

  17. Two sentences in a row with “capped.”

    Clearly Damon thinks she was shot

  18. If a fetus could speak, what would they say?

    My body, my choice.

  19. The idea that a supreme court justice would time their retirement for political purposes is among the most offensive ideas that I have encountered in my entire adult life of relating to politics.

    No, that seat on the court is not your seat. It is not the seat of the party currently in power.


    1. “The idea that a supreme court justice would time their retirement for political purposes is among the most offensive ideas that I have encountered in my entire adult life of relating to politics”.

      Have you never had the government threaten you with prison unless you fork over some of your salary–with the only justification being that you owe the government that money because you earned it?

      Have you never seen your hard-earned money spent on other people with the only justification being that the beneficiaries of your “generosity” are so worthless that no one but the government would ever pay them to do anything?

      I’ve seen millions of people harassed by the police and thrown in prison with the justification that the government was doing them all a favor by siccing the police on them–because it was protecting them from their favorite intoxicant.

      I’ve seen millions of Iraqis subjected to bombing, invasion, and occupation with the absurd justification that they wanted the U.S. government to bomb, invade, and occupy them.

      . . . but the idea that a Supreme Court justice would time his or her retirement for political purposes is the most offensive idea you’ve encountered in your adult life?

      What are you, 14 years old?!

      Have you never encountered the idea that farmers aren’t allowed to grow wheat on their own property for their own consumption without the government’s permission because if they did, it might impact interstate commerce in some small way? Have you never encountered the idea that a single mom should be arrested for hiring an illegal immigrant to clean her house or watch her kids while she’s at work? Have you never encountered the idea that the government should force us all to sacrifice our standard of living to save future generations and polar bears from global warming–whether we want to or not?

      If I made a list of all the offensive political ideas that I’ve encountered in my adult life, the idea that a Supreme Court Justice would time his or her retirement for political purposes wouldn’t even make the top 40.

      1. Did you read the word “among” … dipshit?

        This person is tasked with interpreting the final law of the land and they view themselves as a type of noble who gets to choose the manner of their succession. I agree that all of the other things you mentioned are offensive, but that doesn’t make this repugnant premise any less repugnant. Dipshit.

        1. Did you write the word, “most”?

          The idea that a Supreme Court justice might take timing into consideration and its impact on the Court, when he or she chooses to retire, isn’t even in my top 50 offensive political ideas–and probably not in my top 100.

          It’s not even close to being among the most offensive political ideas I’ve encountered during my adult life–and that’s regardless of whether I’m a dipshit.

  20. Thanks to the Scalia aftermath, everyone is going to prove themselves a self-interested hypocrite in this battle.

    1. Didn’t we already know that?

      Politicians rationalize, so what?

      For a president to get a nominee through the Senate over the objections of the opposition, the president’s party needs to control the Senate, and if the president’s party controls the Senate, the president can get far more controversial judges through than the president could otherwise.

      Rationalizations aside, it’s been about control of the Senate since the nuclear option became a thing, and we can thank both Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell for making it that way.

      1. I believe this was covered by a famous and beloved statesman when he said “Elections have consequences. We won.”

        1. It’s 4 months until the next term begins.
          A House member’s term lasts 2 years, not 1 year and 8 months.
          Likewise, the President’s term lasts 4 years, not 3 years and 4 months, and a Senator’s term lasts 6 years, not 5 years.
          Elections have consequences. There’s no reason to give up power before the term ends.

          That said, how many people on Trump’s list want the job bad enough to subject themselves and their family to a pre-election version of the Kavanaugh treatment?

          1. Feeding his own self interest, Trump can keep it at “vote for me and I promise to pick from the list I just put out”. That way the people who are sick of his schtick but want a conservative court above all else will turn out to vote for him instead of staying home. A definite vacancy to fill is more real than a potential vacancy. Fill the vacancy now and they can go back to sitting out the election based on being tired of his schtick

            1. Or… he can just pick from his list, keeping his promises and doing the job he was elected to do

          2. DC can be admitted as the 51st state and the court can be expanded and new judges confirmed. Actions have consequences. Democrats have nothing to lose. Do you honestly think Democrats are going to just sit back and watch you mfers put women in prison for seeking birth control?

              1. It can be done by changing the size and boundary of DC. The new territory could then petition for admittance as the 51st state. DC would remain outside the jurisdiction of the new state.

                1. So d.c. wouldn’t become the 51st state then.

                  Glad we cleared that up.

                  1. The poor girl isn’t that bright.

                2. It can be done by changing the size and boundary of DC. The new territory could then petition for admittance as the 51st state. DC would remain outside the jurisdiction of the new state.

                  IOW, pick a few Democrat-dominated counties in MD and VA, declare them part of DC in order to legally separate them from MD and VA and then once part of DC, separate them from DC in order create a new “state” for the purposes of securing 2 new Democrat senators?

                  While forbidding CA to break up into separate states?

                  That’s not nakedly corrupt in the slightest.

                  1. Sounds like a fair trade to me. This also makes two otherwise Democrat states into two Republican states, meaning Democrats gain two new senators but lose four senators that go Republican. Even if Maryland doesn’t go all the way R, it will still end with four Dem senators and two Rep senators, where before it was four Dem senators.

            1. No more so than sitting back and watching you mfers put a property owner in prison for refusing to sell land to a greedy private developer.

              1. I’d like to abolish prisons all together. They’re archaic and designed to dehumanize and torture.

                1. I’m in favor of abortion and sorry your mom didn’t have one.

                  1. You’re such an ugly person.

                    1. You’re such a scumbag lefty shit.

                2. So we have a distinct example of your plan in Portland last week. Arsonist released on bail, set 6 more fires. We have one from Jersey a month or so back. Rapist released and killed the woman.

                  Your solution is so much better.

                3. Exactly what would you do with violent criminals?

                  1. High-security mental wellness centers. They can look and function a lot like prisons to the untrained eye, but will have more authority to tranquilize the inmates.

                    1. The dumbfuck probably would have answered something like that if you didn’t make this joke first.

            2. “Do you honestly think Democrats are going to just sit back and watch you mfers put women in prison for seeking birth control?

              I invoke Poe’s law.

            3. put women in prison for seeking birth control?

              This is what happens when you get all of your sociopolitical insights from HBO.

          3. McConnell said quick vote. Doubt he does the senate hearing song and dance.

    2. The Republicans were wrong to delay filling Scalia’s seat in 2016. They shouldn’t make that same mistake now.

  21. Her celebrity was manufactured by the media. Ask a RBG “fan” about here and they won’t be able to tell you anything that wasn’t from a meme. All of these crying proggies on social media hadn’t heard of her until 2 years ago.

    1. Yeah, they liked that she was old and that she voted progressive. That’s it.

  22. Looks like Pelosi picked a bad week to denounce rioting

    1. The logical part of me knows I shouldn’t say stuff like this, but I just can’t help but think that her death kind of feels like karmic payback against the left for everything they’ve been doing to the country this year, from deliberately destroying the economy for political reasons to all the acts the acts of domestic terrorists they’ve been perpetrating.

      1. I can go along with that.

        A farce of an impeachment trial, followed by Blue governors and mayors killing their economies, locking us inside, forcing face masks on us, supporting open riots, etc.

        Whatever raw ass fucking they get, they fucking deserve.

        1. No Vaseline, no mercy

  23. I would think this is bad for the Republicans in some ways. Normally, when you’re going after the moderate swing vote, you don’t want to make the election a referendum on abortion and gun rights.

    However, on this occasion, whatever the Democrats thought they’d gain by painting the Republicans as extremists on abortion is probably being overwhelmed by their tacit support for looting and arson under the guise of “protesting”–and to whatever extent the nominee winning causes “protests”, it’ll bring their support for their own extremists to the forefront of the election again. Meanwhile, as the recent first time gun sales have shown, suburban women all over the country are buying guns for the first time like crazy. Now probably isn’t the best time for the Democrats to demonize buyers.

    The advantages on the Republican side are that it makes the Democrats take public positions they’d rather not take public positions on anymore. For instance, Kamala Harris sits on the Senate Judiciary committee, and she will be under a lot of pressure to be tough on whomever Trump nominates from her own party, but national elections are decided by swing voters–not just the extremists in your own party. When Kavanaugh was confirmed, average Americans were so disgusted by the way he was treated that the Trump actually saw his poll numbers rise. If Kamala Harris gets nasty, she risks losing support for the ticket among swing voters. If she isn’t nasty enough, she risks her radical base staying home.

    The worst implications for Biden directly may be the question of why he hasn’t put forward a list of candidates he’d choose from if and when he’s elected president. Trump showed us his list of candidates he’d choose from–why hasn’t Biden done the same? Is it because his list of nominees to the Supreme Court are full of radicals? How much of a bullshitter does that make Biden if on the one hand, he says we shouldn’t confirm a Supreme Court appointee until after the election–but he won’t show us who is on his list of nominees?

    If he produces a list and it isn’t full of crackpots, activists, and radicals, again, his party base will be furious with him. If it is full of crackpots, activists, and radicals, that will no play well with swing voters. He would much rather not put any list out there, but I don’t think he can get away with that at this point. He’s being forced to show his cards.

    1. Yeah, I know Trump and team Red are discussing the angles on this nomination to hurt the Dems. It’ll be interesting how this plays out.

    2. Biden wouldn’t lose a vote over his “list” if he gave one. His votes are entirely anti-Trump.

      Trump needs to put out a nominee soon because it’s a Constitutional duty and a political matter. The politics is to both keep his campaign promise and to ensure a full court when the election litigation comes to them.

  24. Everybody says me about this post…….READ MORE.

  25. Even though she was, generally speaking, a staunch left-leaning jurist, and therefore not someone whose politics I would normally agree with, there are many aspects of her life which are respectable, commendable, or admirable.

    I didn’t always disagree with her opinions, either. Sometimes the SC would issue a ruling that I thought was fair and in keeping with the spirit of the constitution, and after reading the opinion, I would be surprised to find that ‘Notorious RBG’ was the author.

    I suppose people on all sides could argue as to whether she should have stepped down under the Obama administration or was right to hold on as long as she did.

    Alea iacta est.

    1. Her life’s work is based on a lie that she took in her oath as a lawyer and as a DC circuit judge and as a justice. Three times professionally she promised to defend the Constitution and had no intention to do so. Each time she lied.

    2. Yeah, everyone on the Supreme Court had an amazing resume. Some of them just ignored the Constitution and used their intellect to reach decisions that made no sense at all.

  26. Also, we should consider the impact if, for some reason, the Democrats somehow succeed in rejecting President Trump’s appointee.

    I think that favors the Trump campaign.

    One of the people on Trump’s list of potential nominees is Bridget Shelton Bade. She was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 26, 2019 by a vote of 78-21 in the Senate. What’s it gonna look like if the Senate suddenly decides she’s unfit to be a judge–just a year and a half after dozens of Democrats voted to confirm her?

    Daniel Cameron spoke so eloquently at the Republican convention just a little while ago. He is the first African-American Attorney General of Kentucky. Given that performance at the convention, he may have the potential to be the President of the United States someday–and might want to turn down an iffy appointment to the Supreme Court for that reason. However, if President Trump nominates him from his list and the Democrats successfully deny him confirmation, how will the Democrats look to swing voters for refusing to confirm him?

    I don’t mean that the news media won’t be kind to whatever allegations are made against these nominees (or other like them), but rejecting them for trumped up reasons isn’t likely to play well with swing voters. Bridget Shelton Bade looks like the kind of suburban women swing voters both Biden and Trump need in order to win. Daniel Cameron came across as such a charismatic guy at the convention that demonizing him may be political suicide for someone like Kamala Harris on the Judiciary committee. If Trump nominates either one of them–or someone else like them–and the Democrats succeed in denying him or her a place at the Supreme Court, I bet that makes it more likely that Trump will win in November.

    1. Speaking of trumped-up reasons – One of the (several) reasons I will not be voting for any Democrats in national office races this election is how terribly they treated Justice Kavanaugh during his confirmation process. It’s burned into my memory.

      1. Yeah.

        And the Democrats shouldn’t want to create any new memories like that in the minds of swing voters either. But I’m not sure they can resist the urge to demonize whomever the Republicans nominate.

        I’m not sure it’s about what they choose to do so much as it’s about who they are.

        Hillary Clinton couldn’t resist the urge to refer to Trump supporters as “deplorables”. That may have cost her the election. I’m not sure the Democrats can resist the urge to demonize Trump’s nominee any more than they could resist the urge to defend arsonists and looters. It may destroy them.

        How’s that old proverb about the frog and the scorpion go?

        It’s in their nature.

        1. Comey cost her the election. She said half of Trump supporters were deplorables. She was right. All you folks with Trump’s Dick down your throat look like huge hypocrites to the average person. Leaving Scalia’s seat vacant for nearly a year was the right thing to do, but now it’s hurry hurry hurry we only got a few weeks. Anyone with a brain thinks the GOP are hypocritical shit bags. Hell the moral high ground of the GOP is held by a goddamn Mormon for Christ sake. When you look bad compared to a goddamn Mormon you’re really fucking up. Send all the Mormons to the gas chambers!

          1. Try somewhere stupider. You might fit in better.

            1. What specifically is stupid about my comment?

              1. The order the words and punctuation are arranged in.

                1. Its hard to type on my crappy phone, so I try to correct my typos, but sometimes I don’t. Rather than criticizingmy grammar and typos why not explain why you think my argument is stupid? Are you all like 10? No you’re just far right, inbred redneckswith Trump’s Dick down your throat cutting off oxygen to your brain. IM SMARTER AND BETTER THAN YOU HILLBILLIES! MY LIFE HAS MORE VALUE BECAUSE YOURE ALL INBRED TRAILER TRASH.

                  1. Your reply definitely doesn’t indicate that you’re smarter than anyone, as you clearly didn’t comprehend what I said

                    1. I’ll stop with the typos. So Tardz why the fuck do you have a problem with me?

                    2. “Send all the Mormons to the gas chamber!!”

                      “KAR, you’re a retard.”

                      “Oy vey, why the virulent hatred?”

                    3. Your words and the order you arrange them is what indicates your lack of intelligence.
                      That isn’t commentary on typos.

                    4. Well I can tell you’re an inbred, sister fucking redneck from your comments. I’d rather have crappy grammar in a comment section than be a inbred far right loon.

          2. You want a vacant seat in the SC when mail by voting apocalypse is just around the corner?

            Imagine FL 2000, except this time it’ll be half the country or more.

            1. The state where I live has been voting by mail for 20 years with no problems. Why can’t Republicans produce any specific evidence of voter fraud? Because it’s virtually non-existent. Although there was electoral fraud(not voter fraud) in NC’s 9th in 2018. Oh wait it was comitted by a REPUBLICAN. They’re lying hypocrites. Take Trump’s lying cock out of your lying mouth! It’s cutting off oxygen to your brain.

  27. OMG – Trump should appoint Kamala Harris. You can’t say she doesn’t have the qualifications on paper, she’s a she, and she’s a biracial POC.

    Its a triple threat.

    1. The Dems can’t say she’s unqualified or otherwise come up with a reason she’s ineligible.

    2. Does she take the nom or does she go for the gold ring – the Harris-Biden Administration?

    3. Trolololololol #WINNING!

    Take the wind right out of the Harris-Biden campaign’s sails.

    1. Lol. She’d probably decline, but it would be hilarious if she dropped from the ticket, then the senate denied her right before the election.

      1. That is all good fun but Trump needs to pick someone this Monday and the Senate confirm that person by next Friday.

        1. “That is all good fun”


      2. In all seriousness, I hope someone is working on Cruz to get him to realize he’ll never be prez.
        Would be a great replacement for Breyer

    2. What if he picked Garland?

    3. I like your style

      1. or maybe Biden, IF he agrees to transition

  28. Bypassing the Gatekeepers to Build a Music Career hannibal brumskine iii

  29. one more conservative justice on the court and newdeal/commerce clause cases really start appearing before the court…that is why the Left will have an absolute meltdown with this

  30. There have been high profile dems who have publicly threatened to burn it down if the pubs even try to replace RGB while Trump is still in office. Not to mention threats by dems to pack the court and impeach the conservative justices. All things to help turn out for the pubs.

    On the other hand lots of dems will have exploding heads if RGB is replaced, or even if the pubs attempt it and will be foaming at the mouth to vote.

    What is being overlooked is not just that Biden has not released his potential nominees but that just in time for the first debate and, unlikely but possible, he will have to face a press and Trump asking questions about it. So far Biden has been less than impressive in softball pressers. If he goes off the rails and says he will be nominating cream of corn (still can’t figure out how so many peeps in his past had corn as part of their name) for the SC it could easily be a disaster. Not to mention as others have posted Harris will have a hard row to hoe in any hearing; too hard on the ACB (whoever) is not a good look but too easy on ACB and her base will not like it.

    Bottom line is this may be a wash in terms of who gets the most benefit election wise. But if ACB (whoever) gets confirmed it will likely be a big win for the pubs.

  31. Saint Reagan appointed her. She sucked. Obama appointed Sotomayor. She ain’t half bad. I can’t be convinced that the politics of the president and the politics of the appointee are guaranteed to have anything in common.

    1. it was dunce Clinton, you freaking dullard….Sotomayor would be a Bolshevik 100 years ago

      1. He has a hangover. Be nice.

      2. Whoops. I was wrong. Unlike JesseAz who has never been wrong in his entire life.

        1. JesseAz is rarely wrong.

          Sarcasmic is wrong on days that end in “Y”.

        2. Maybe he can handle his drink and doesn’t have a hanger over all the time?

        3. I’ve admitted to being wrong here.

          You’re wrong again.

    2. Wait… you think Sotomayor has been good?!? The wise Latina who will go against jurisprudence if she feels empathy for someone?? She’s the definition of results based judiciary.


      1. She doesn’t suck cop dick. So that’s not half bad. But you have no choice but to hate her. Gotta signal your conservative virtues.

        1. Poor sarcasmic’s citations always seem to fall off.

        2. No, I explained why I disliked her. Results based judiciary.

          Why can’t you take what someone says instead of creating strawmen?

        3. Here is Cato’s analysis at the time.

          Try to educate yourself.

        4. She is also racist:

          “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

          And same article:

          Judge Sotomayor also said she believes it is appropriate for judges to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decision-making, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

          But we already know you to let your emotions win out, probably why you actually like her.

          1. Follow this up with her Ricci vs. DeStefano ruling as an appeals judge.

        5. She also politicized the court publicly through her dissent in this years Public Charge case, can’t remember the case title off hand.

          But no, you know better. She seems good with cop cases.

      2. She really isn’t bad on 4th Amendment issues. Was the lone dissent in Kansas v. Glover (registered vehicle owner’s violations are enough to pull you over as a driver), had a concurrence in U.S. v. Jones advocating a mosaic theory of in public view. I vaguely recall a couple of other cases where she pointed out some practical issues in 4th Amendment search law.

  32. New York has said they will erect a statue of RBG.

    I will be heading to NY to tear that statue down.

    1. Don’t forget your BLM attire and you should be fine

    2. Put it next to the Alice in Wonderland statue, in recognition of her bizarro legal reasoning.

  33. Trump may have just made an ass out of everybody that pushed the panic button over TikTok being banned tomorrow.

    “Donald Trump said he’s approved Oracle Corp.’s bid for the U.S. operations of TikTok “in concept,” a deal forced by the president’s orders last month declaring the popular video-sharing app a national security threat.

    . . . .

    Trump said the new company would be headquartered in Texas, would hire as many as 25,000 people and would contribute $5 billion toward U.S. education.

    —-Bloomberg, 33 minutes ago.

    The ban threat was just to get Bytedance to agree to become a minority shareholder.

    There’s still a question of whether China will approve the technology transfer, but there apparently won’t be any TikTok ban on Sunday, tomorrow, regardless. If China won’t approve the technology transfer, chances are the deal will go forward and Oracle will just write their own recommendation algorithm and keep the brand name, content, URL, and other assets in the U.S.

    1. Just to be clear, the headquarters will create 25,000 jobs in Texas, and the United States will get $5 billion in the deal for education!

      Promises made.

      Promises kept.

    1. Freaking right wing domestic terrorists….

      they are everywhere…

    2. That is a straight up assassination attempt. Can our politics descend lower?

  34. A new study by Princeton University’s US Crisis Monitor shows that the U.S. experienced 637 riots between May 26 and Sept. 12, and 91% of those riots were linked to the Black Lives Matter movement.

    1. The rest were…sports-related? Or what?

      1. Mostly peaceful.

      2. That’s what I was wondering.
        But sports were shut down, so…
        My guess is that either some non newsworthy events were included or they’re only counting the Official BLM Sponsored (and notarized) riots.

      3. Anti-Vax maybe? Mass tried to force kids to get flu shots before going back to school.

    2. Do we have notarized agendas from the BLM leadership?

      1. If they weren’t carrying their BLM membership cards, you must acquit. Also, Wookies never lived on Endor.

        1. It
          Does not

    3. The country is big enough that white suburban liberals who exist in their own little bubble can dismiss riots as something that won’t happen in their neighborhood. But they’ll whine if homeless people move into hotels too close to their homes. Seriously, half the country ROOTS for these rioters.


    “Let this moment radicalize you,” she said. “Let this moment really put everything into stark focus. Because this election has always been about the fight of and for our lives.”

    “I need you to be ready,” she added.

    1. “What happened to a Latino nations when socialist revolutionaries take over control”

      Asked very few members of the American media.

      It would be nice to see the Marxists throw out the white suburban liberals thrown out of their comfortable bubble for the good the collective. Their descent into despair will be good for society.

  36. The news media is going nuts denouncing Trump and the Republicans in the Senate for ignoring RGB’s dying wish that the next president nominate her replacement.

    Why pay any attention to the Constitution if the Constitution conflicts with RGB’s dying wish?

    In addition to everything else that’s wrong with progressives, they’re also incredibly childish.

    1. I’m still curious about her word choice, installed. Not elected, but installed.

      1. my theory: either she didn’t use that exact wording and someone “adjusted it” (maybe reasoning that she would have wanted it that way because she often did that with the law) or she didn’t say it at all

        1. If she was on her death bed when she said that, then she wasn’t thinking like someone at Biden’s campaign HQ figuring out the strategy and political ramifications of her word choice.

          1. Making the use of those words all the more horrible.

      2. No need to be curious most of what she said before her death was retarded also

    2. People on their death beds are usually highly medicated and not thinking clearly. Why put any weight on it at all?

      1. And their last wishes often can’t be independently confirmed.

  37. Trump’s SC list has evil Mormon Senator Mike Lee on it. The man who said climate change can be addressed by procreating more. Mormons want to take over the country and force their Fucked up, Wrong, Stupid, and Evil beliefs on everyone. If Lee is allowed on the SC say goodbye to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the freedom to drink. Conservative mormons are bigoted hypocrites. I’m a pacificist at heart and try to be reasonable. If mormons stopped having 10 goddamn kids and knocking on everyone’s doors I would allow them to stay in Utah. However they’re bent on taking over the country and forcing their ignorant, bigoted, wrong beliefs on all of us. Now because i’m a nice guy a relatively painless death of zyklon B in a confined space is what they’ll get. They deserve to die slow painful deaths, but I’m too nice a guy to do that. Those sheltering and sticking up for the Mormons need to go too. If you’re dumb enough to not hate Mormons then you don’t deserve to live. Send all the mormons to the gas chambers!

    1. “Trump’s SC list has evil Mormon Senator Mike Lee on it.”

      Your bigotry is disgusting.

      1. Mormons are the bigots. Why do you stick up for them? What they believe is goddamn nonsense? All you’re doing is making yourself look as goddamn evil and dumb as them. Therefore you gotta get in the gas chamber aith them. Send all the mormons (and their shelterers and collaboraters) to the gas chambers!

        1. Your screen name is ‘KillAllRednecks’ but you aren’t bigoted at all?

          1. No one is forcing them to be rednecks. Anyone dumb enough to be a redneck shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce. However most are christians who love having big families so they need to be stopped. They’re inbred far right loons. Send all the Mormons to the gas chambers!

            1. You’re a bigoted piece of lefty shit.
              Fuck off and die a long, painful death.

              1. Great analysis Sevo you inbred cousin fucker

              2. Your just a tll Sevo. I’m dumb for replying to you. However I’m still a million times smarter than your right wing ass. Far righties are fascists, but call liberals fascists because they’re to dumb to look up the fucking definition. Mormons are the ones who hate non whites and non polynesians. THEYRE BIGOTED TOWARDS NON MORMONS! No one is forcing them to believe the nosense they believe. THEYRE RUINING THE COUNTRY AND MUST BE EXTERMINATED. Their loony far right defenders need to be sent to the gas chamber a too. Don’t worry Sevo I’ll letyou bringyour cousin so you can have one last fuck. Send all the mormons (and Sevo’s cousin fucking ass) to the gas chambers!

                1. *you’re a troll Sevo

                  1. Going with parody; too stupid to be otherwise.

                    1. Never underestimate the stupidity of progressive trolls.

                    2. You’re a cousin fucking, right wing loon, troll. Rather be a “bigoted” lefty than a cousin fucking troll. I’m bigoted against Mormons. No one is forcing them to believe the nonsense they believe. I don’t have to be tolerant of evil morons who are trying to destroy our country. I’m a goddamn patriot and the Mormons are traitors. Send all the mormons to the gas chambers!

        2. I think this is a Kirkland parody.

        3. You’re a bigoted piece of lefty shit.
          Fuck off and die a long, painful death.

          1. Not a parody. I’m just way smarter than all you ibred, far right loons. Try taking Trump’s Dick out your mouth and think critically for once.

            1. I’m just way smarter than all you ibred


              1. The actual joke? He never bred.

                1. It’s a shame his parents did.
                  (Still going with parody)

                  1. Ok you got me there that looks stupid. I really should make sure comments don’t have typos before posting them. You still haven’t managed to tell me specifically what you’re problem with me is. I know it’s hard for Sevo because he’s so goddamn inbred(and a troll). I guess most reason commenters are inbred trailer trash who can’t think for themselves. Check mate cousin fuckers. Send all the mormons to the gas chambers.

                    1. Yes that makes you look stupid.

                    2. Probably smarter than you.

                    3. Probably smarter than you.

                      “Citation needed.”

                    4. Citation: not a braindead conservative inbred piece of shit. There ya go!

            2. “ibred”

              new from Apple?

            3. I’m just way smarter

              This is a very common delusion among lefturds. I think it’s a consequence of letting so many idiots in academia pretend to be intellectuals despite all evidence to the contrary.


              1. It’s a common delusion among conservatives that they think they’re smarter than non-conservatives despite all evidence to the country. Just because they may be slghtly smarter than their more inbred relatives they are still inbred morons themselves. They have zero life skills or common sense. That’s why they live in butt fuck rural areas because they’re too stupid to function in cities. Send all the mormons to the gas chambers!

                1. Get your meds adjusted, you snotty little twat.


          2. You’re a cousin fucking, right wing loon, troll. Rather be a “bigoted” lefty than a cousin fucking troll. I’m bigoted against Mormons. No one is forcing them to believe the nonsense they believe. I don’t have to be tolerant of evil morons who are trying to destroy our country. I’m a goddamn patriot and the Mormons are traitors. Send all the mormons to the gas chambers!

            1. You did this copypasta already, dweeb.

    2. Wait what I thought you loved the Mormons? Werent you going on and on about how great Utah is?

      1. You have me confused with a traitor. Anyone who supports mormons is comitting treason because they want to destroy America. Send all the mormons to the gas chambers!

  38. Purely for entertainment purposes, I’d love to see Trump nominate Merrick Garland so we can all watch as Leftist heads explode FemBot style.

  39. You want the truth about the future of the court?

    The truth is, none of us have a clue. Not even a tiny one.

    Nobody knows what they will become when they are appointed. And nobody knows what the dynamic of the court will be.

    Who would have guessed that Roberts would have become the statist squish that he has become? There have been plenty of shifts upon getting that lifetime appointment. There are no guarantees.

    There’s no guarantee that someone else won’t move left after RBG is replaced, coveting the role of “dealmaker”. Being that swing vote has been a very popular role for most of the last 40 or 50 years.

    Kagan and Sotamayor are reliably partisan and mostly reliably statists. Breyer is reliably leftist and statist. I am not sure any of them are ideologically grounded.

    Not like Thomas. That dude is just about as predictable as a block of granite. He has his idiosyncrasies, but they are reliable idiosyncrasies. Alito is reliably conservative.

    Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? Who knows. too soon.

    And Roberts? He seems to have outed himself as a company man. He likes the Federal Government, and he likes the courts. He protects both. At least that is how it looks.

    So sure, a “conservative” seemingly means that most issues will move to 6-3. But Roberts is not at all reliably Republican… not like the other three are reliably Democrat.

    Thomas is definitely not reliably Republican… He aligns with his own compass. When that happens to coincide with the Republican position, then he’s on their side. That’s more often than not. But he won’t be partisan.

    Alito is sometimes team R, but he’s also a principle dude. Gorsuch seems to be a bit of that as well.

    So ideologically based stuff will probably swing hard. But the team based stuff will probably remain the mess that it currently is. There just are not that many judges who seem to operate on first principles.

    1. Is it that they are not ‘reliably conservative’ or is it that they don’t have an articulated judicial philosophy? I tend toward the latter, and CJ Roberts is following his philosophy. I am not unhappy with him.

      We know what philosophy Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan have: flavors of progressivism.

      Thomas and Gorsuch are committed Originalists.
      Alito seems to be more of a movement conservative to me.
      Kavanaugh…I don’t know what his philosophy is. Time will tell.

      I want a young, committed Originalist on SCOTUS. Period. This is what POTUS Trump promised. Now it is time to deliver.

  40. “…libertarian scholars and activists were at the forefront of the legal wrangling, arguing that Congress lacked the lawful authority under the Commerce Clause to compel every American to buy health insurance. Ginsburg would denounce that argument as “stunningly retrogressive.”

    This is is evidence of how authoritarian Ginsburg’s brand of progressive thought is. That the idea that the federal government does not have the authority to dictate what a private citizen may buy for merely existing is antithetical to it and appalling to her for even being made.

    1. She does seem to have thought that the purpose of a liberal Supreme Court justice was to protect the government from the Constitution rather than to protect the American people from the government.

      In that most basic way, she was like the New Dealers that came before her, the Progressives of the early 20th century that came before them, as well as the progressives who are driving the Democratic Party today.

  41. “…Justice Harry Blackmun, had grounded the right to abortion in “personal privacy, somehow sheltered by due process,” as Ginsburg put it. It would have been much better, she declared, if the right had been rooted in “a constitutionally based sex-equality perspective.”

    I expect that Blackmun did not do that because basing a right to abortion on sexual equality would have been absurd on its face. A man has no right to unilaterally terminate his parental responsibilities after conception occurs. He may have the ability to dodge them, but he has no legal right to do so.

  42. For once Republicans are acting like they actually mean what they say. All my life I have been told by Republicans that appointment of conservative justices was the most important thing ever and warranted me voting for whatever crap weasel the party nominated. Well they now have the legal right an authority to replace a liberal justice with a conservative one.

    So do the Republicans actually mean what they say when they talk about the importance of judges? Mitt Romney and a few others don’t or they would support this. Indeed the Republican Party before Trump didn’t really mean it when they talked about judges. Sure it was something they wanted but it wasn’t something that was important enough to them to do anything hard or divisive to obtain it.

    Trump means it. When he said he wanted to appoint conservative judges he meant what he said not just if it was convenient. For all of the claims of Trump being a “liar” by Trump’s opponents actually meaning what he says is why the media and his opponents. In a world full of liars, someone who tells the truth is hated most of all and called the biggest liar.

    As far as the politics go, they favor confirming a justice before the election. Don’t confirm a justice and the Democrats can run on replacing Ginsburg with another liberal and keeping the balance of the court as it is. That is something that appeals to moderates and independents. Self proclaimed independents love any argument that claims to balance the extremes of both sides.

    Confirm a replacement and the deed is done. The Democrats either have to accept it meaning it won’t be an issue or offer a way to undo it. They will never accept it. The only way to undo it is to pack the court. So confirming a replacement forces the Democrats to run on a promise to pack the court, which is something that is popular only with the lunatic fringe of their base.

    The truth is the Democrats have made it clear that they plan to pack the court the first chance they get anyway. So, replacing Ginsburg doesn’t make them any more likely to do it. It just forces them to be honest about their desire to do so and the public to vote accordingly.

    Appointing and confirming a replacement doesn’t break any legal norms. The only norm is that the Senate can confirm or refuse to confirm anyone it likes for whatever reason it likes whenever it likes. There is nothing in the Constitution or law that says it can’t and everyone knows if the roles were reversed the Democrats would do the same thing.

    If there was any norm that has been broken it was Harry Reid ending the filibuster on judicial appointments. That was a extra legal norm for a very long time. If it still existed, the Republicans wouldn’t be able to replace Ginsburg until the next Congress if at all depending on the result of the election. But it doesn’t exist because the Democrats discarded it. The Republicans have no duty to restore it in order to save the Democrats from their blunder.

    1. I’m getting a little freaked out by what will happen if the Democrats win the Senate and the White House. It helps to remember that all this has happened before–and much of the damage was undone by economic growth and technological innovation. The horrible things the left has done in the past has made prosperity, liberty, and justice harder to come by, but there was progress in all these areas despite them.

      FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court–just as the Democrats will if they win the Senate and the White House. Just as abolitionists tried to add states to the union to give themselves an advantage in the Senate, the Democrats will gift themselves four additional Senators by granting statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

      FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court failed in no small part because the threat of packing it intimidated two Supreme Court justices to change their minds about New Deal cases that came before them. We still live with the negative consequences of terrible decisions like Wickard v. Filburn, but the country thrived in the aftermath of the New Deal (and World War II) right up until the present day.

      I keep feeling like the Supreme Court may be our last defense against people like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who think the purpose of the Constitution is to protect the government from the American people (say by way of Biden’s Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and whatever other horrifying monstrosities the Democrats cook up next), but the Supreme Court hasn’t been much of a defense against leftist fanatics in the past–not against the abolitionists, not against the Progressives of the early 20th century, not against the New Deal, and not against the Great Society, not against ObamaCare.

      We libertarian capitalists may find ourselves in 2021 with nothing but reality on our side, but ultimately, that’s more important than the rest of it put together. The Vietnam War, the Soviet Union, the Drug War, and the U.S. government–they’re all subject to reality no matter what the progressives or the Democrats or the environmentalists or the Senators from Puerto Rico or what anyone else says. Bad policies have negative consequences, and even totalitarian governments like China’s can be forced to change by the negative consequences of their terrible policies.

      The Democrats will eventually hang themselves with all the rope they’re given, and absurd policies like the Green New Deal may be passed and declared constitutional–but will never be fully implemented because the negative consequences are too great. The biggest difference between electing Biden and reelecting Trump may be that if we reelect Trump, we can avoid whatever negative consequences would be associated with Biden’s big ideas–to whatever extent he’s actually able to implement them. But power generation won’t be carbon free by 2035 regardless.

      And that’s just one example.

      1. The problem with packing the court is that as soon as the Republicans got control of the government, and they would, they would do the same thing. So it would start a cycle that would be very hard to stop. Are we going to have a hundred justices? It would do grave and perhaps fatal damage to the legitimacy of the courts.

        For that reason, I am not totally sure the Court would allow it. Sure, the Constitution doesn’t say the Court has to be nine members but it doesn’t say a lot of things that the Court has found it to say. I could see the court ruling that expanding the number of justices to be unconstitutional. Just finding it invalid. That would be a hard thing to do for sure, but the alternative would be allowing the Democrats to destroy the court. I think even Roberts might find the backbone to stand up in that situation, although I hope we never have to find out.

        1. I’d like to believe the Court would step in, but 1) the Constitution really does give Congress the power to change the number of justices, 2) the social justice warriors that control the Democratic Party don’t give a shit about negative consequences until after they actually happen, and 3) The Court has repeatedly failed to protect us in the past from this stuff. We’re likely to get a penaltax ruling.

          They should be the guardians of the Constitution but they aren’t.

          And this is why we need to reelect Trump or maintain control of the Senate. They really will drive the bus over the cliff with us in it if they get the keys. That’s why I keep telling my fellow libertarians: The choice is not between equal outcomes regardless of your protest vote for the LP. The choice is between the status quo or a world that is significantly more authoritarian and significantly more socialist if Biden is elected and the Democrats take the Senate.

          We had two Democrats to choose from to send to the Senate last time in California. You could vote for the Democrat or the Democrat. We weren’t allowed to vote for a Republican because the Republican wasn’t allowed on the ballot. The progressives have no scruples, and they are incapable of shame. Only the voters can stop them, and if my fellow libertarians continue to insist that there’s no difference between getting raped by socialists and not getting raped by socialists, then maybe they deserve to be raped by socialists–but the rest of us don’t.

          Trump must be reelected. Don’t count on the Court to save us.

      2. FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court–

        To be precise, he threatened to pack the court. He didn’t actually nominate any additional candidates and submit them to the senate for approval.


  43. Did Ruth leave instructions for interment in New Zealand?

    1. Am I the only one that finds the use of the word “installed” rather than “elected” in her last request to be creepy as hell? A new President, when there is one, will be elected not “installed”. What a strange choice of words. We elect our Presidents. They are not installed by our betters you nasty old hag.

      1. FWIW, JesseAZ said the same thing.

        Personally, I don’t believe the story as it’s being sold.

        I have no doubt that RGB would rather have been replaced by a liberal, but the idea that her last words were exactly what the Democrats needed her to say to get their base riled up six weeks before the election is far too Hollywood not to have been scripted.

        In fact, this probably the most proximate source of RGB’s death speech script:

        One of the reasons to believe that the events of Jesus of Nazareth’s death might have happened more or less as related in the gospels is because if they were trying to create a heroic myth about someone being the son of God, they probably wouldn’t have invented a story where he says, “My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” And if he’d said that God had forsaken him, they might have left that part out–unless he actually said it.

        Likewise, I’m having a hard time buying that RGB was laying there on her death bed surrounded by family and was talking about politics.

        My grandfather was a retired minister, and he used to take me with him when he went to visit people who were dying in the hospital. By the time I was 15, I’d talked to dozens of elderly people as they were dying–some of them surrounded by family and some of them alone. I had a number of them talk to me as if I were a younger version of themselves–give med advice like not to waste my youth when there were so many bored young ladies around. None of them ever discussed politics with me on their deathbed–either with me or their family–and some of them were bureaucrats and local politicians.

        1. “And if he’d said that God had forsaken him, they might have left that part out–unless he actually said it [they really were trying to be accurate].

          —-Ken Shultz


      2. Given the word choice, I’d say it’s flat-out bullshit from interested parties, or editorializing by interested parties.

      3. Imagine a woman is laying on her deathbed, after a long life, rich family, and career in the US legal system, culminating in a Supreme Court appointment and confirmation that she serves in for the next 25-plus years. She’s been battling cancer and broken ribs for several years, and it’s probably a miracle that she didn’t kick off before now.

        As she’s about to drift off into the beyond, she manages to wave her hand for her family to lean in closer. Are her last words, “I love you,” or “I’m glad you could all be here with me”? Nope–they’re entirely focused on something entirely carnal and worldly. “It’s MY seat and don’t let that mean man replace me!”

        This story is either shitthatdidnthappen.txt, or Ginsberg really was an egomaniacal, entitled piece of shit.

      4. One way or another, they are going to try their hardest to “install” the next president because this election is too important to leave up to those icky voters

        But I doubt she used those exact words

  44. Here’s another reason to be optimistic about President Trump’s reelection chances . . .

    We often hear that the reason Trump won in 2016 was because Hillary Clinton was such a loathed figure. Biden, supposedly, isn’t hated that way–and that may be true.

    On the other hand, back in 2016, the wider Democratic party wasn’t nearly as loathed as they are today. If the wider Democratic party suffered with swing voters for its association with Hillary Clinton in 2016, I suspect that Joe Biden is suffering with swing voters for his association with the wider Democratic party today.

    Hillary Clinton was seen as a corrupt elitist, but the Democratic Party today is seen as the champions of radical environmentalism, the enemies of patriotism, the enemies of law and order, and the tacit supporters of looting and arson. If Biden wins in 2020, it won’t be because of his association with the Democratic party but in spite of it.

    Seems to me that may put Trump in a better position today than he was in 2020. If Trump loses, it’ll be because of the economic devastation caused by the pandemic and the lockdowns–not because Biden is more likable than Hillary Clinton.

    1. If the Republicans confirm Ginsburg’s replacement, the Democrats are going to be forced to run on packing the courts and taking revenge. Their base will expect nothing less. Biden will have to say in so many words that if he is President he will pack the court. I do not think the country is going to vote for that. It really puts the Democrats in a no win situation.

      1. Republicans should concentrate on forcing Biden to release a list of potential Supreme Court nominees for that reason.

        If Biden’s list isn’t full of whackadoodles, it’ll alienate his base. If it’s chock full of whackadoodles, it’ll alienate swing voters.

        If Biden says we shouldn’t confirm a new Supreme Court justice until he’s elected, then why hasn’t he shown us his list of potential nominees?

        He wants to both make it a campaign issue and refuses to show us what he would if he were elected?

        Time to call bullshit.

        1. No one gives a shit who would be on Biden’s list. The only thing that matters anymore is whether the appointee is a Democrat or Republican.

          1. Swing voters care if Biden’s list is all whackadoodle all the time, and the progressives are making total support for abortion and clear opposition to gun rights in the next Supreme Court nominee a big reason why people should vote for Biden.

            Are you kidding?

          2. The reason Biden hasn’t put a list of potential nominees out yet is because it hurts him either way.

            Let’s put it that way.

            If he thought it would help him and not hurt him, he’d already have a list out.

            1. Biden doesn’t have a list out because it would make him look like a presumptuous asshole. It would be the “why am I not up by 50 points?” moment of his campaign.

  45. If Lindsey Graham holds Senate Judiciary Cmte confirmation hearing before the election (which I consider likely), Kamala Harris and other partisan Democrats on the Cmte (Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker) are likely to overplay their attacks on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee (just as occurred during Kavanaugh’s hearing), which could ensure not only the Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation by the Senate, but also Trump’s reelection, Republicans holding the Senate, and perhaps even the Republicans regaining control of the House.

    I suspect the Dems (and their many activists in the news media) will once again claim that Roe v Wade and women’s right to abortion will be eliminated by whoever Trump nominates.

    Trump would be wise to nominate a woman who has never publicly (or even privately) opined against Roe v Wade, which will make it more difficult for Harris and other Dems to demonize and prevent her confirmation.

    As a libertarian atheist who supports a woman’s right to abortion (with restrictions during the latter part of pregnancy), I support Trump’s reelection as women will continue to have legal access to abortion even if Roe v Wade is struck down (by going to a blue state), and since fundamentalist Christian theocracy is unlikely to regain a majority of public support.

    1. “Kamala Harris and other partisan Democrats on the Cmte (Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker) are likely to overplay their attacks on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee”

      If they go too hard, they’ll alienate moderate swing voters, and if they don’t act like pit bulls going after a steak, then they’ll alienate their core SJW, progressive supporters.

      They’d rather not have a hearing until after the election for that reason. There is no side of that equation without significant risk just weeks before the election. And that’s why the Republicans should absolutely insist on it.

      1. This.

        And the irony is that it was RBG herself who is responsible for this, first by not retiring during the Obama admin, then by not retiring when diagnosed with a terminal illness.

        Not only did she gamble away the chance for a moderate progressive successor, she couldn’t have timed her departure from her position better for his campaign if she tried.

        1. But is it better for Trump’s campaign to nominate someone now and push him or her through, or better to defer it until after the election, to boost turnout?

          1. If he thinks he’s going to lose, of course the best play is to nominate someone now and load up the court before he’s gone.

          2. He does better now for letting the Democrats demonize a really nice woman on national television. They won’t be able to stop themselves. It’s in their nature.

  46. Start generating extra cash online from hom emore than $22k by doing very easy work just in spare time. Last month i have got paid $22745 from this easy home job. Join this job right now and makes more cash every month online. Just follow web link here to get started…Open This Website…… CLICK HERE FOR FULL DETAIL

  47. Trump doesn’t actually have to nominate an Annointed Shyster to the court, does he? How about making the lefturds’ heads assplode by nominating Michael Flynn?


  48. the notorious collectivist rbg, there corrected it

  49. Of course, with RBG dead, USPS will be out having a field day, delivering parcels and one-day packages altogether with regular mail and exercise equipment. And most importantly, taking all necessary time to ensure loss of its corporate profits every step of the way!

  50. Democrat threats have now included:
    1) stacking the court (adding 2 more seats if Biden/Harris win)
    2) nationwide protests (COVID-19 not a thing anymore)
    3) a nationwide strike (shut it all down)
    4) impeachment (again)
    5) not so mostly peaceful riots
    6) mob violence at McConnell’s house
    7) TBD

    All while claiming that Republicans are pursuing a naked partisan advantage and political power on the court “by any means necessary”, simply for doing what Democrats urged them to do in 2016, nominate a replacement. Sure McConnell is being a hypocrite, but replacing a deceased Justice is business as usual, it’s not “seizing power by any means necessary” — Democrats are sizing up those options, all to counter business as usual.

    1. Get with the program, racist.

  51. “Joe Biden calls for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to be WITHDRAWN if he loses the election in November”
    “Biden said Americans will not ‘stand for this abuse of power’…”

    Trump nominating a SC justice is an “abuse of power”! I didn’t know that; I thought it was his job.

    1. Come to think of it, Trump’s investigation into Biden’s blatant misuse of office in Ukraine upset crazy Joe also, so this is no great surprise.

  52. Making Cash more than $15k to $18k consistently just by doing basic online work. I have gotten $18376 a month ago just by working on the web. Its a simple and basic occupation to do from home and its profit are greatly improved than customary office work. Each individual can join this activity now just by pursue this link……..go to this site home media tech tab for more detail support your hear Here══════❥❥❥❥Click For Full Detail.

  53. Do job online here to earn thousand of dollars…Click For Full Detail.

  54. I have made 96,760 Buck just last month by working online from my home. I am a full time college student and just doing this in my free time for few hours per week by using my laptop.Everyone can check this out and start making cash online in a very easy way by just following instructions……. Read More   

  55. Republicans should do the following:

    Nominate and put up for vote Barbara Lagoa. Make the democrats simultaneously trash a woman of color and run on a platform of court packing.

  56. In 2016 Justice Ginsberg stated that a President is elected for 4 years when asked about Obama nominating a Supreme Court Justice in his last year. The Democrats all condemned the idea the Senate should wait until after the election to consider Obama’s choice. After careful consideration the Republican Senate now agrees and to make up for their mistake in 2016 they promise to confirm the nominee President Trump picks. Now the Democrats after reforming the Republicans to their way of thinking are becoming hysterical and agreeing with the Republican stance of 2016. It’s sure hard to please Democrats.

  57. Start now earning extra $16,750 to $19,000 per month by doing an easy home based job in part time only. Last month i have got my 3rd paycheck of $17652 by giving this job only 3 hrs a day online on my Mobile. Every person can now get this today and makes extra cash by follow details her==► Read More

  58. Ever_person says me about this post..READ MORE

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.